AMD EPYC 9745 vs AMD EPYC 9754 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9745 and AMD EPYC 9754 are both 128-core server processors, but the benchmark data reveals they are not equals. The 9745, part of the newer EPYC 9005 series, wins 16 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, often by substantial margins. The 9754, from the EPYC 9004 series, holds a single narrow victory in data encryption. This analysis breaks down the architectural shifts and quantifies the performance gap between these two flagship-class chips.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9745 has an average benchmark score of 425,973, while the AMD EPYC 9754 scores 364,371. The 9745 sits 3.4% above the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX and 7.1% above the AMD EPYC 9655P in its rival list.

Q: How large is the performance difference in multi-threaded workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9745 scores 111,093 versus 83,939 for the 9754, a 32.3% advantage. The PassMark multi-thread test shows a similar 32.3% gap, with scores of 130,698 and 98,752 respectively.

Q: Which chip wins the single-core performance battle?

A: The EPYC 9745 wins every single-core benchmark. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 15,683 against 11,850 for the 9754, a 32.3% difference. PassMark single-thread results show a 20.5% advantage for the 9745, scoring 2,806 versus 2,328.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the older EPYC 9754 wins?

A: Yes. The EPYC 9754 edges out the 9745 in PassMark data encryption, scoring 231,891 versus 229,447. This is a 1.1% difference, and it is the only win for the 9754 across all 17 head-to-head tests.

Q: What are the clock speed specifications for these two processors?

A: The EPYC 9745 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The EPYC 9754 operates at a lower 2.25 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost.

Q: How do these chips compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 9745 supports 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is significantly higher than the 460.8 GB/s supported by the EPYC 9754. Both use DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental difference lies in the silicon generation. The EPYC 9745 is built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, while the EPYC 9754 uses the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Bergamo. This is a generational leap, not just a clock speed adjustment. The manufacturing process has also shrunk from 5 nm to 3 nm, both produced by TSMC. This process shrink is a key enabler for the performance gains.

The core-level cache configuration differs. The 9745 features an 80 KB L1 cache per core, while the 9754 has a 64 KB L1 cache per core. Both share a 1 MB L2 cache per core and a massive 256 MB shared L3 cache. The larger L1 cache on the newer chip likely contributes to its superior single-threaded performance.

The transistor count and die size are only specified for the 9754, which has 71,000 million transistors across 8x 73 mm² dies. This data is not available for the 9745, making a direct physical comparison impossible. However, the shift from Zen 4 to Zen 5 represents a significant internal redesign, leading to higher instructions per clock (IPC) and efficiency gains that are visible in the benchmark scores.

Both processors share the same AMD Socket SP5, support DDR5 memory with ECC, and provide Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes (CPU only). The core count is identical at 128 cores and 256 threads, meaning the performance delta is not from more cores but from a more capable core design and higher operating frequencies.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data paints a clear picture of dominance for the EPYC 9745. In Cinebench R15, the multicore score is 11,198 versus 8,460, a 32.4% lead. The single-core test shows a 32.3% advantage, with scores of 1,580 and 1,194. This trend continues through Cinebench R20 and R23, with the 9745 maintaining a consistent 32.3-32.4% lead in both multi-core and single-core tests. The consistency of this delta across different Cinebench versions suggests a fundamental IPC improvement, not a workload-specific anomaly.

The PassMark suite reveals where the architectural advantages are most pronounced. The largest single win for the 9745 is in the physics test, where it scores 17,122 against 8,793 for the 9754. This is a massive 94.7% advantage, suggesting the Zen 5 cores handle physics calculations with far greater efficiency. Prime number finding also shows a huge gap, with the 9745 scoring 979 versus 604, a 62.1% difference. Random string sorting follows at 53% ahead, with scores of 468,975 and 306,481.

The 9745 also leads in floating-point math by 29.4% (761,219 vs 588,187) and integer math by 19.2% (1,224,315 vs 1,026,896). Extended instructions show a 25% advantage for the newer chip, with scores of 280,477 and 224,322. Data compression is closer, with the 9745 leading by 10.5% (3,929,890 vs 3,558,043).

The only exception is data encryption, where the 9754 scores 231,891 compared to 229,447 for the 9745. This 1.1% margin is small, but it indicates that the older chip retains a slight edge in certain cryptographic workloads. This could be due to specific instruction optimizations in the Zen 4 core that were not carried forward or were changed in Zen 5.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is the architecture and process node. The 9745 uses Zen 5 on a 3 nm process, while the 9754 uses Zen 4 on a 5 nm process. This leads to a difference in clock speeds: the 9745 boosts to 3.70 GHz, while the 9754 tops out at 3.10 GHz. The base clocks are 2.40 GHz and 2.25 GHz respectively.

The TDP also differs, with the 9745 rated at 400 W and the 9754 at 360 W. The newer chip uses more power but delivers significantly higher performance. Memory bandwidth is another differentiator, with the 9745 supporting 576.0 GB/s versus 460.8 GB/s for the 9754. The L1 cache size per core also differs, at 80 KB for the 9745 and 64 KB for the 9754.

The release dates are separated by over a year. The 9754 launched on 2023-06-12, while the 9745 launched on 2024-10-09. The launch MSRP for the 9745 is $12141, and for the 9754 it is $11900. Both share the same socket, memory type, memory bus width, PCIe lanes, and ECC support. Both have a production status of Active and are not multiplier unlocked.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9745 is the clear winner for almost every compute-intensive task. Its dominance in Cinebench multi-core tests (32.3-32.4% ahead) makes it the superior choice for rendering, video encoding, and any workload that scales with core count and clock speed. The 94.7% lead in PassMark physics suggests it is exceptionally strong in scientific simulations and physics-based modeling. The 62.1% lead in prime number finding points to advantages in cryptography and number-crunching algorithms. The 53% lead in random string sorting indicates better performance in data processing and sorting-heavy databases.

The 9745 also wins all single-core tests, making it better for workloads that rely on a single thread, such as certain legacy applications or lightly threaded database queries. The 19.2% lead in integer math and 29.4% lead in floating-point math show broad superiority in general-purpose and scientific computing.

The EPYC 9754 has a single, narrow win in data encryption, with a 1.1% advantage. This is a niche victory, but it could be relevant for specific security-focused workloads that are heavily dependent on encryption algorithms. For any other task, the data indicates the 9745 is the better performer.

The Verdict

The data is unequivocal: the AMD EPYC 9745 is the superior processor in nearly every measurable way. For new server deployments focused on maximum performance, the 9745 is the clear choice. Its 32.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 20.5% lead in PassMark single-thread make it a generational upgrade. The higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz and newer Zen 5 architecture deliver tangible benefits across all benchmark categories.

The EPYC 9754 remains a relevant option only for workloads where its specific encryption performance advantage is critical. Its 1.1% lead in data encryption is the only data point in its favor. For all other tasks, the 9745 offers a substantial performance uplift. The choice is straightforward for most users: the 9745 is the more powerful, modern part. The 9754 is a capable processor, but the benchmark data shows it has been outclassed by its successor.